Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sugar – a typed lispy language targeting webasm/wat

ph1lter.bitbucket.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–28 of 28 posts

Re: Sugar – a typed lispy language targeting webasm/wat

#21

Post by banjomet »

timdeve wrote: post #16
valenterry wrote: post #15

I really like the power and flexibility of Lisps, but I am so much more productive with good(!) statical typesystems. Looking at both typed racket and now sugar, it doesn't look really good to me. I think I would rather decide to go straight for Haskell/Scala/... or Lisp/Clojure. Maybe it's not really possible to combine both in a good way _yet_, or maybe it's not possible in general. I hope for the former.

You should check out Carp[1]. The language is still young but it might scratch that itch. [1] https://github.com/carp-lang/Carp

There is also bonelisp[0], but I think that is dead.

[0]: https://github.com/wolfgangj/bone-lisp

Re: Sugar – a typed lispy language targeting webasm/wat

#22

Post by TurboHaskal »

thealig wrote: post #20
TurboHaskal wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you already know how to program, I'd recommend to just install SBCL and start a project with https://lispcookbook.github.io/cl-cookbook/ as a companion. Forget about the perfect editor setup, idiomatic code and all that fuzz about becoming enlightened. (Common) Lisp is first and foremost a productive, pragmatic language to get things done, so just start hacking.

I am particularly looking to learn a LISP style language. Scheme and Racket caught my interest, given its concise, expressive syntax. Is it advisable to start with Common Lisp first, or go with Scheme/Racket? Thanks for the tip btw.

They are really different languages with similar syntax.

Scheme is opinionated and wants you to program in a certain way (hence TCO being part of the standard), it's also more static and doesn't want to take over the whole machine like Common Lisp and Smalltalk want.

I started with Scheme but I am no longer my idealistic self so I am partial to Common Lisp since I use it for work and don't mind coding in ugly kitchen sink languages as long as they are fit for production use. Not that Scheme lacks amazing implementations such as Chez, Gambit or Chicken (my favourite) but I would have a harder time building something non trivial in those.

As a counter argument you have https://fare.livejournal.com/188429.html from a seasoned Lisper so YMMV.

Re: Sugar – a typed lispy language targeting webasm/wat

#24

Post by moonchild »

galfarragem wrote: post #8

When I read about a new typed Lisp I always hope to see a Lisp with Haskell-like type annotations. Is this easily feasible? That would be real sugar .

You may be interested in coalton, an ml dialect embedded in cl - https://github.com/stylewarning/coalton

Re: Sugar – a typed lispy language targeting webasm/wat

#25

Post by marksmillibend »

chriszhang wrote: post #12

Will you say it is ok for a complete new person to lisp to learn sugar? Example is someone who has never learnt lisp in life? Or will you recommend learning sugar after learning some other lisp?

Oh please do _not_ do that :)

Sugar is just a toy. Don't learn it. Maybe you can learn something about common lisp from reading the sugar compiler source code.

I agree with TurboHaskal. I too, learned Scheme first and liked it cos it was simpler/purer etc. than Common Lisp.

When I finally learned Common Lisp, my only regret was that I hadn't learned it earlier.

Common Lisp is not perfect, but it has a single standard. Very important. It's very mature and battle tested.

The people who you'll meet in the Common Lisp community are very smart and capable and you will learn a lot from them. I did.

Learning Scheme won't hurt but I recommend Common Lisp. Great, free compilers, lots of libraries for everything and a great community.

But please, do not learn sugar :)

Re: Sugar – a typed lispy language targeting webasm/wat

#26

Post by cylinder714 »

chriszhang wrote: post #12

Will you say it is ok for a complete new person to lisp to learn sugar? Example is someone who has never learnt lisp in life? Or will you recommend learning sugar after learning some other lisp?

A vote for "Common Lisp [as] the best language to learn programming":

"Between Land of Lisp, David Touretzky's Common Lisp: A Gentle Introduction to Symbolic Computation (really great book for people new to programming, available for free) and The Little LISPer (3rd edition, editions four and up use Scheme) you have three really great resources to get started."

https://carcaddar.blogspot.com/2011/10/common-lisp-is-best-l...

And here's a link to Shapiro's COMMON LISP: An Interactive Approach:

https://cse.buffalo.edu/~shapiro/Commonlisp/

Re: Sugar – a typed lispy language targeting webasm/wat

#27

Post by chriszhang »

marksmillibend wrote: post #25
chriszhang wrote: post #12

Will you say it is ok for a complete new person to lisp to learn sugar? Example is someone who has never learnt lisp in life? Or will you recommend learning sugar after learning some other lisp?

Oh please do _not_ do that :) Sugar is just a toy. Don't learn it. Maybe you can learn something about common lisp from reading the sugar compiler source code. I agree with TurboHaskal. I too, learned Scheme first and liked it cos it was simpler/purer etc. than Common Lisp. When I finally learned Common Lisp, my only regret was that I hadn't learned it earlier. Common Lisp is not perfect, but it has a single standard…

Awesome! Exactly the type of advice I was looking for. :) Thanks!

Re: Sugar – a typed lispy language targeting webasm/wat

#28

Post by thealig »

TurboHaskal wrote: post #22
thealig wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am particularly looking to learn a LISP style language. Scheme and Racket caught my interest, given its concise, expressive syntax. Is it advisable to start with Common Lisp first, or go with Scheme/Racket? Thanks for the tip btw.

They are really different languages with similar syntax. Scheme is opinionated and wants you to program in a certain way (hence TCO being part of the standard), it's also more static and doesn't want to take over the whole machine like Common Lisp and Smalltalk want. I started with Scheme but I am no longer my idealistic self so I am partial to Common Lisp since I use it for work and don't mind coding in ugly kitchen…

Ah thanks for the info, will check it out.
Post reply on HN